Is safety testing for Australian market according to AS/NZS 60950.1
mandatory, even if the product is powered with 24VDC? I have been told so ..
To be more precise:
The product (EUT) gets it power 24VDC/0.1A from an AC/DC (230VAC/24VDC)
power supply, which is IEC60950-1 tested and approved
If you are just looking to just tick an 'ESD Pass' box and humidity helps (and
it usually does), elevate the humidity in the test area to near 60%. I have
used a portable single gas burner and kettle to do this in the past.
Unless the equipment is intended particular environmental conditions, it
In message 20130308100854.166...@gmx.com, dated Fri, 8 Mar 2013,
Anthony Thomson ton...@europe.com writes:
Unless the equipment is intended particular environmental conditions,
it is a mandatory condition of 61000-4-3 that the climatic conditions
for the test be conducted at between 30% and
Amund
Power Supply is prescribed and must undergo a certification process.
EUT is not perscribed and does not have to undergo a certification process. It
must however meet AS/NZS 3280 which is very similar to the LVD. One way to
comply is to use a standard such as AS/NZS 60950.1
Best Regards
Hello group,
I have a question about the surge test for a 27VA ac adapter (without PE and
external earth connections) for IT equipment.
EN55024 refers to EN61000-4-5 requiring a test level of 1kV between L and N
and 2kV between L and PE as well as between N and PE.
The power supply failed the
In message 2AA1EFC0E932461392280BAFDD591F1D@lashko, dated Fri, 8 Mar
2013, =?iso-8859-1?Q?H. K=F6ster?= h.koes...@psi-engineering.de
writes:
Please give me your experts comments.
7.2 of IEC/EN 61000-4-5 says (among other things):
If there are no other possible connections to earth,
Hi John,
Thanks, I have a copy of the relevant standard.
But in 7.2 is also mentioned that for such products the test shall be done
in a similar way as for grounded products but without adding any additional
external grounded
connections.
And that is physically correct as I think. Also
The IEC 61000-4-2 test standard is also pretty loose with regard to the
characteristics of the ESD waveform. For example the current waveform risetime
(measured in contact discharge only) is acceptable if in the range 0.6ns to 1ns
(0.8ns +/- 25%). Are the effects of a pulse near 0.6ns rise
Jim, it doesn’t take much to drive me nuts – it’s more of a short putt
Gary
From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 7:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] test setup for table top ungrounded equipment 61000-4-2
IEC:2008 figure 6 page 20
In message A144CDCEB987491A84EA585AF964D205@lashko, dated Fri, 8 Mar
2013, =?iso-8859-1?Q?H. K=F6ster?= h.koes...@psi-si.de writes:
But in 7.2 is also mentioned that for such products the test shall be
done in a similar way as for grounded products but without adding any
additional
Yes, and the ESD standard was written when the best scope we had was just 1 GHz
BW. Having worked for the HP/Agilent scopes division for 20+ years, and with an
interest in ESD, I had access to the some of the highest BW tools possible.
Every time I remeasured the ESD waveform (using either the
In message
7B9D892F88F070469771832D78B3086E062B63EA@013-BR1MPN1-012.MGDPBI.global.p
vt, dated Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com writes:
The IEC 61000-4-2 test standard is also pretty loose with regard to the
characteristics of the ESD waveform. For example the current waveform
Table 4 of EN 55024 is clear enough, 1kV line-line and 2kV line-ground tested
i.a.w. IEC 61000-4-5.
Clause 7.2 of 61000-4-5 says that, for double insulated products without an
earth, line-ground tests may be omitted.
I would agree with your power supply manufacturer assuming the PSU is of double
In message 20130308150029.166...@gmx.com, dated Fri, 8 Mar 2013,
Anthony Thomson ton...@europe.com writes:
Table 4 of EN 55024 is clear enough, 1kV line-line and 2kV line-ground
tested i.a.w. IEC 61000-4-5.
So it's missed the point about DI products.
Clause 7.2 of 61000-4-5 says
FYI.
Scanning the EU OJ just now, I noticed in OJ L063 (6-Mar) a new regulation
(174/2013) and 2 entries relating to an international (EU-USA) agreement for an
energy-efficiency labelling program for office equipment.
I haven't read into this just yet, but wanted to get the word out about it.
Dear Members,
Is EU Group an international recognized term? I reviewed a CB report
with EU Group listed. I requested to have each individual country
listed. The reply was additional USD400 charge. I cannot be convinced for
the charge.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Grace Lin
-
I presume that they are referring to the EU Group Differences/Deviations.
That term is a standard term used on the CB report, but I would agree if you
were only looking for one country to be included, there should have been
assessment for only those deviations.
Regards,
Tom Smith, P.Eng
In message
cajq2vagqy+a3r7qmjczs0qoe6+ywevna6hx6hucqipp2mt7...@mail.gmail.com,
dated Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com writes:
Is EU Group an international recognized term?
No.
I reviewed a CB report with EU Group listed.
Ask for a definition of 'EU group' to be added to
Well folks. I disagree. Here's why. If the power supply is used in an
application were the output is referenced to ground , you will not be stressing
the primary to secondary circuits. If your power supply isn't man enough for
this you should place warnings in your literature BEFORE purchase is
My 'typical' CBTR, for the most recent ITE TRF, uses the term EU Group
Differences and EU Special National Conditions and/or National
Differences, followed by country codes, and code explanations.
I once had a report rejected because it used 'KL' for Klingon national
difference. One would think
Maybe Klingon should have been KR for Kronos, their home planet.
Regards,
Tom Smith, P.Eng
Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.
Tel: +1 403-612-6664
Email: tsm...@tjstechnical.com
http://tjstechnical.com
Follow us on Twitter: TJS_Technical
-Original Message-
From:
In message 16ae4617-0f5d-4e49-b285-a4349ff32...@aol.com, dated Fri, 8
Mar 2013, Derek Walton lfresea...@aol.com writes:
Well folks. I disagree. Here's why. If the power supply is used in an
application were the output is referenced to ground , you will not be
stressing the primary to
In message 15f47804185443ec8e100671c7c1a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Fri,
8 Mar 2013, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes:
I once had a report rejected because it used 'KL' for Klingon national
difference.
Of course: the country code for Klingon is not KL but .
--
OOO - Own
In message 01c601ce1c34$1dd7eb90$5987c2b0$@tjstechnical.com, dated
Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Tom Smith tsm...@tjstechnical.com writes:
Maybe Klingon should have been KR for Kronos, their home planet.
Already allocated to South Korea.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
SHOCK HORROR!
Oh wait, wasn't that the moon that blew up - I think they still had to move
Dennis Ward
Senior Certification Engineer
PCTEST
This communication and its attachments contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the
recipient (s) named above.
Kronos blew up, they had to move
Dennis Ward
Senior Certification Engineer
PCTEST
This communication and its attachments contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the
recipient (s) named above. It may contain information that is
The following message was posted to LinkedIn by Tom Burke:
As shared previously, the latest Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) for
Edition No. 2 of IEC 62368-1 (108/495A/CDV) was distributed in December
and had a closing date for voting by TC108 National Committee
Participating (P) members of
If the EUT and test setup for it, has no PE ground, this should have been a
null result, nothing would happen.
But given that damage occurred, something faulted to PE ground, and that should
not have happened.
From: Derek Walton lfresea...@aol.com
To:
Yes it was the moon that blew up but I think you are correct that they had
to move anyway because the impact was going to make the world un-inhabitable
in something like 40 years.
Regards,
Tom Smith, P.Eng
Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.
Tel: +1 403-612-6664
Email:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 14:10:02 +,
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:
Please give me your experts comments.
7.2 of IEC/EN 61000-4-5 says (among other things):
If there are no other possible connections to earth, line-to-ground
tests may be omitted.
I think maybe the paragraph
Recently, I heard of a couple of events, lithium battery fires it seems.
Details are very nebulous for liability reasons. You know that part of the
story.
So I'm pondering as to what could have caused such an event.
Since I get to measure radiated emissions down to 9kHz, I am aware of what
I'd start with the Cat5e and if there are problems, try the others.
The percentage for a solution is low.
If there is a problem, it comes from the circuit and not the cable, which can
be used to mask the problem.
The test report would need to specify just what cables were needed to pass.
If the
One thing that needs to be considered is RTCA/DO-160 section 20 conducted
susceptibility requirements. I don't know into what category these lithium
ion batteries fall, but given the consequences of failure, the military hits
them with 200 V/m. I would be surprised if the commercial air
33 matches
Mail list logo
